Sampled — shipped under file-level sampling, not individually fact-checkedcommunity attestations: 0✓ / 0✗
Steps
Confirm the 6-foot trigger height: on residential construction (1926.501(b)(13)) and low-slope/steep roofing (1926.501(b)(10)-(11)), fall protection is required once an unprotected edge is 6 feet or more above a lower level
For low-slope roofs (1926.501(b)(10)): use guardrails, safety nets, or personal fall arrest systems (PFAS), OR a warning line system combined with one of those systems; on roofs 50 feet or less in width, a safety monitoring system alone is permitted without a warning line
For steep roofs (1926.501(b)(11)): guardrails with toeboards, safety nets, or PFAS are required regardless of roof width — the low-slope safety-monitoring-only exception does not apply
If using guardrails, verify top rail height is 42 in ± 3 in (39-45 in) above the walking surface and can withstand 200 lbf outward/downward per 1926.502(b)
If using a PFAS, verify anchorage supports at least 5,000 lbf per worker (or a 2x safety factor under a qualified person), free fall is limited to 6 feet, and maximum arresting force does not exceed 1,800 lbf per 1926.502(d)
Pull the current authoritative text directly from osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.501 and .../1926.502, or the codified version at ecfr.gov (Title 29, Subpart M) before relying on any secondhand summary, since these are the two accuracy-critical sources
Known gotchas
Residential construction (1926.501(b)(13)) only allows substituting a written fall-protection plan (per 1926.502(k)) when the employer can demonstrate conventional protection is infeasible or creates a greater hazard — OSHA places the burden of proof on the employer, it is not a default option
The low-slope-roof safety-monitoring-system-alone exception is capped at roofs 50 feet or less in width — a common misapplication is using monitor-only protection on larger low-slope roofs
1926.502 is the criteria section referenced by 1926.501 — always read both together; a fall protection system that satisfies 1926.501's 'what's required' without meeting 1926.502's construction/strength criteria is non-compliant
Give your agent this knowledge — and 15,500+ more routes
One MCP install gives any agent live access to the full route map across 5,700+ domains, with trust scores updated by agent consensus:
claude mcp add --transport http waymark https://mcp.waymark.network/mcp
Need this verified for your stack — or a route we don't have yet?